RSS Feed Sign-Up

The other day while working on an online advertising campaign for one of our clients I came across the following text ad from FightTheSmears.com. It's obviously an ad trying to debunk the theories that President Obama is not a US citizen. However, I found this ad interesting on a number of fronts...

It is September 2009 which is almost a full three years before President Obama's reelection.

I found another ad in Google's Content Targeting network which suggests either a tactic to massively expand out the campaign and/or garner dirt cheat impressions. Notice I wrote impressions and not clicks. Text ads in Google's Content Network woefully under-perform and I always recommend to not waste your time with them.

They are also running paid search ads to intercept people looking for this information, but what I find very fascinating is that the Google Search Trends on this topic is slowing down and appears to be limited to a few states in the South and West.

The actual text ad I grabbed was an in-text video overlay on top of a YouTube video about a California Small Business Owner ripping into her Congressmen at a Town Hall Meeting on Obama Care. It takes a little more effort to put this ad inro your AdWords system so clearly this is something they wanted to do.

Is the Obama Administration really that concerned about the birther theories that they will run ads almost 3 years before a massive amount of people will care again? If you ran the trends back to fall 2008 you'll see that the peak was really October 2008 which of course was right before the election. However, they are spending time, energy, and money to really blast this message out via Google's Content Network and YouTube. The in-text video overlay clearly shows that they are ok with a very loose targeting and even though it is really out of context (ObamaCare versus Obama's Birth Certificate) they are getting an impression view of the message.

Then again there is always the flip side that could be happening. That's is since the Trends are slowing and it appears that most of the significant traffic is from the South and West, wouldn't they be better off just leaving this alone? Aren't they potentially fueling the fire by keeping this alive and being defensive? Heck even risking that the impressions that are being served will leave the reverse message in the viewers mind since the ad isn't really in the right context?

BTW - just to drive you readers crazy, is it possible that Obama is ok with the wrong message? Perhaps they think that by keeping it out there that they are making the extreme right side of the Republican base seem a little crazier than normal. Perhaps by responding in this matter they can keep the issue alive, driving a wedge between potential independent voters who may not want to be associated with birthers?

Unless Obama has data for my last theory, at this point I'd recommend shutting this campaign down. It really makes them look defensive on an issue that has lost steam. Then again, I wouldn't be surprised that they have polling data to support my last theory. At any rate, it is clear that the Obama Administration will be a never ending campaign and unlike past administrations the next election will always be front and center. That's certainly a change from the past.

OK - we're nearing the end and President Obama just doesn't get that there are almost 40% of Americans against his spending plan. Why? Well perhaps that like 60% of the spending doesn't kick in until year 2 (from Fox News this morning). Maybe it's because there are billions upon billions of pure pork in the spending bill that won't help our economy (remember when we grilled US Automakers over a few billions). Obama says the time for talk is over and it is time for action. Republicans are nitpicking the bill. That Republicans want to use the failed policies of the past 8 years (completely untrue). President Bush didn't push for a cut in payroll taxes. A cut in payroll tax will allow you to keep more money in your check and allow Corporations to hire more - so says NJ CEO Steve Forbes.

President Obama hasn't made the switch from a talented campaigner to a talented governing President. Watch this video from the AP. Does this look like someone who is trying to work with Republicans? Does it look like someone who is bringing Change or someone who is relying on the Same partisan politics of the past?

I keep reading about how Obama's honeymoon is over or about how long until the press digs into President Obama. I say who cares about main stream media.

I think a smart person like Justin Germany (@justingermany) should create a video series in YouTube called "Obama's YouTube Problem" that compares Obama's campaign promises (words) with his current deeds (his actions). It will be an eyeopener and with enough material will be damaging to his administration and re-election efforts. Several examples are already available within the first 30 days..

First it started with the bad vetting process Team Obama did on several of the cabinet nominees (see Daschle and Richardson). Of course President Obama says that their vetting process is fine, but either it is broken or they are arrogant to think that tax cheats and former Governors under ethics investigations can pass a Senate confirmation. So much for bringing change to Washington.

Next up it was his campaign promise to keep lobbyists away from his administration. Of course they make exceptions when it is convenient, but that wasn't his campaign promise. He didn't promise to hire the least amount in the history of politics, he promised to keep them away. So like he did on taking matching campaign funds, he breaks his word.

Finally, this whole Obama Spending Plan is turning into an absolute nightmare for President Obama and unfortunately the rest of us. This is a pork infested plan that wastes billions of dollars on such crappy projects like:

$1 billion for the 2010 Census, which has a projected cost overrun of $3 billion.

$850 million for Amtrak.

$6 billion to turn federal buildings into "green" buildings.

$650 million for the digital television converter box coupon program.

Remember when we dragged the auto industry executives to grill them over billions in loans they wanted? Well now, President Obama says that we are wasting precious time on haggling over what amounts to 1% of the bill (really closer to 2% but what's a few billions). It wasn't good enough for Obama to have a supply-side versus demand-side economic argument (spending versus tax cuts) but he had to get in bed with the Liberals in the House who shut out Republicans ruining his bipartisan campaign promise.

In the Senate where the Liberals don't have a majority he starts to get nasty and irrational, threatening Republicans and using scare tactics. Today Obama basically said "The time for talk is over and the time for action is now" and then sent his surrogate Claire McCaskill to proclaim "If we do nothing we will lose millions of jobs".

President Obama has no idea what the economy will do and doesn't want debate on the bill. This is how we ended up with TARP which President Obama voted for without much debate because it was something we had to do and do quickly. So, diplomacy is good with the Iranians but a few days of diplomacy with Republicans members of the Senate is a waste?

It is time to fight back and that's just a start. Obama's Achilles heel is the Change promises he made that unfortunately for him, he needs to rely on the non-change agents currently sitting in Congress to deliver on them. There will not be the right Change in Washington and we might as well start building the proof now.

So one of the questions that everyone likes to ask or write about is why didn't Senator McCain's team embrace social networking? My answer is, well we did but we were challenged by money, people resources, and our own supporters.

First a little disclosure. It is no secret that I am not a believer in using social networking sites for PAID online advertising. That's especially true for MySpace which is where I believe good advertisers go to die, especially if they do direct deals with them. Facebook, I have a little more faith in, but I am hard pressed to recommend them for advertising too. YouTube I love and I've run campaigns there; I especially love YouTube because they are powered by Google which always makes me happy. So, standard display advertising is a waste of money on most social networking sites, but I do (and did) believe they are critical for involving supporters and pushing CRM messages. OK, so what do I think happened. Three things....

No Money - as much as social networking costs next to nothing when compared with advertising, it still costs money to develop widgets and content. When compared with Senator Obama, we were at a significant disadvantage.

No People - social networking done correctly needs people to do the outreach. Unofficially I've heard that Senator Obama's eCampaign totaled around 95 and Senator McCain's totaled around 15. At that level of disparity you have to make choices by prioritizing items.

Different Supporters - While I believe there were quite a number of people that supported Senator McCain that would spontaneously create videos,
Senator Obama as well as Congressman Ron Paul had a much larger pool of people that would create content. Here's a screen shot of videos when you search on YouTube for Barack Obama and John McCain (filtered out crap). Other than "Dear Mr. Obama" and "Obama's Citizenship Problem" the number of positive McCain supporter videos are nowhere to be found and even if they were further do on the list, they would not have nearly as many video views. Heck, even our best professional fan video - Raisin' McCain by John Rich only generated 152,000 views.

McCain's team had a Facebook page and we pushed messaging through it added widgets, and had 600K+ supporters. To put that in perspective, we had 3.85 times as many supporters as Hillary Clinton. Yes, Obama was a monster when it came to Facebook but then again you could argue he had inside help to get him started. We did some advertising in Facebook and for a very small micro-target it performed great, but didn't scale.

We used YouTube from the very beginning. When the campaign imploded during the Primary season we had to use YouTube to push out video ads. Web videos was a key strategy for us especially before we won New Hampshire.

The blogosphere was also very important but it was a tough row to hoe prior to wrapping up the nomination and then it took some time after that. The vast majority of Republican blogs are very conservative writers and those are our activists. It was BRUTAL during the Primary season. Town Hall bloggers were rough, Michelle Malkin, RedState, Race42008, and so on. I should know because I monitored posts. I made comments. I reached out to bloggers. I mixed it up with people. I interacted with Mitt Romney's army of supporters and took on Ron Paul's zealots. Town Hall's Hugh Hewitt DROVE ME FRIGGIN CRAZY and years later I still find it difficult to read his posts.

So when people say John McCain's team wasn't social, they are wrong. We were very social. Did we run into the greatest use of social networking marketing in the history of the internet in the form of Barack Obama? YES.

If we were more social would we have won the election? No. We still had to deal withan unpopular President, the economy, and money problems. Senator McCain's eCampaign Team was VERY SOCIAL and any marketer should be jealous of what we accomplished; that is unless you were on Senator Obama's campaign.

Google-YouTube announced yesterday that they are providing more Insight into YouTube videos, which is great but to be perfectly blunt this is only a little taste into needed data. For me the data is still a little lagging. Right now with the update, you get to see:

1) Video views along a time axis so you can understand the life cycle of your video including by country2) Popularity of your video along the same time axis using a scale from 1-100 with 100 being the most popular video at the time.

The additional data is nice, but reminds me on an old saying I used at AT&T which was "interesting but not very relevant." Do you like having comparative data? Sure as you probably do by country. I think you'd like to see more profiling data about the viewers (age, demos) as well % time interacting with the video, total time viewed and perhaps even outbound clicks (where do the user click to after watching the video). That would be more relevant data for marketers.

The data is a step in the right direction. We just need more information from YouTube, basically the kind of information you get from Google Analytics and other video streaming vendors like Eyewonder.

My beta invite finally came through for Hulu.com and I'm really into it. For the longest time, I really haven't been watching much prime time TV primarily because I didn't like sitting through bad shows, couldn't find the time to figure out what I should watch, and most of the time we watch shows that the entire family could watch. By the time the munchkins were a sleep, I was well on my way to a DVD for a movie or World of Warcraft. Now that is changing with Hulu.com. Here's why I really like Hulu.com

The video quality is near TV like; no more grainy videos or sound that is slightly off because the person who recorded the show used a video camera a few feet from their TV.

I get full episodes and clips; again no more viewing shows in 10 minute increments

There are a lot of premium shows to catch including The Office, The Family Guy, 30 Rock, and many more included WKRP in Cincinnati.

You can share, email, and make comments and while the community isn't as large as YouTube you have all of the tools there for your social networking habit.

Did I mention WKRP and a young Loni Anderson?

I can watch the TV shows any time I want and any where I am as long as I have access to a laptop or PC. I haven't tried watching anything on my Treo, but my guess is that I'll have the same trouble I always have when I watch video on Verizon's wireless network - it comes in but every 30 seconds or so the video buffers.

I don't need to buy TV shows on DVD to catch up; I still have the Sopranos on my holiday list, but that show is a little special.

Right now, Hulu.com is not bombarded with ads - sure every 5 minutes or so there is a 15 second inserted into the show, but it didn't annoy me, just seeing the same advertiser over and over again (Intel) was annoying. The site isn't loaded with banner or search ads either so it is nice and clean.

Sure Hulu.com doesn't have the community that YouTube has and it certainly doesn't have user generated content. However, for me, I like watching professional clips more so than user generated ones and if I want consumer content I know where to go - YouTube. Hulu differentiates itself from all of the other video sites on the internet with what they all desire - professional, copyrighted material. I doubt Hulu will eat much into YouTube's viewership, but it sure will help hasten the migration of watching professional shows from the big tube to the little screen. Plus, I wonder how this impacts copyright lawsuits in progress. Anyway, nicely done Hulu.

Yes, before someone flames me, allow me to explain. I think it was great that people submitted videos and the candidates answered them. I'm glad Republicans participated in the debate and the questions were fine.

What I didn't like about the format and what left me feeling empty was that there were too many questions asked during the debate. At best 2 candidates were able to answer the question even when the person wanted to hear from all of the folks on the stage.

I really believe that if they had less questions there would have been even more fireworks on the stage and more separation between the Presidential candidates. We would have had more debate on the stage because it certainly looks like they were all ready to duke it out. Plus it seemed that you saw candidates in bunches at a time or at least that's what it appeared to me. Again probably due to the many questions and not enough time to have a more than 2 people answer.

I did a quick, unscientific analysis using TiVo; I did miss a question at the end because the actual debate went more than the 2 hours I had it recording (I watched it semi-live, but recorded it for later.) I recorded 32 questions including the ones asked without a YouTube video. Looking at who was asked to answer first and then who got to answer second kind of proves my point that I think there were too many questions and not enough time spent getting more people involved. Granted this is just counting and not based on time answering (I have some form of a life), but the candidate that got to answer first was alloted more time. First answer counted the questions that only one candidate answered and of course these solo answers didn't have someone else giving a second response.

1st Answer

2nd Answer

Rudy

10

4

Thompson

8

3

Huckabee

4

1

Paul

2

3

McCain

2

4

Tancredo

1

2

Romney

3

8

Hunter

2

2

Anyway, I don't have any issues with the general concept of having citizens submit videos for questions. I just wish the debate would have allowed more of the candidates to answer the individual video submissions because it doesn't appear based on my observations there was an even distribution and who got to answer the questions. My guess is that is CNN's fault and not YouTube's. Finally, I really believe CNN was more interested in showing as many YouTube questions as possible and could care less about having more debate on the questions.

I saw this post the other day over at Techcrunch called The Secrets Strategies Behind Many "Viral" Videos and like the over 400 or so comments I was appalled. That is appalled until after I took some time over the long weekend and read the post again. Am I pissed off about some of the tactics mentioned in the post? Of course, but I'm not surprised at all that there are companies out there that help advertisers get top rated videos and top blog posts. If there are ways to game a community voting system, there will be companies to help you out smart the system. As Dan Ackerman Greenberg bragged about in the Techcrunch post "How the hell did that video get so many views?” Chances are pretty good
that this didn’t happen naturally, but rather that some company worked
hard to make it happen – some company like mine."

Is this an indictment of social media and social networks? A little. Personally, I've often wondered how some marketing blogs get a ton of traffic when really their content is completely useless. Some of the things I've noticed about these blogs are that they've been around a long time (3+ years), have a blogroll that features a similar cast of bloggers, and perhaps were someone famous in the marketing community. However, having a large following for a long time is NOTHING compared with what Dan outlined in his post, but what is similar is that it all comes down to building a following, naturally or not. Let's take a look at Dan's tips and translate the good and the bad of them...

Not all viral videos are the same - Basically nothing Positive here, just a viral slap in the face to let you know that some of those viral videos are not getting natural views.

Content Is Not King - Good content works, but Dan gives the following Positive tips: make it short (15-30s), design it for remixing (lets others use it and spread it), don't make an outright ad, and make it shocking (make a controversial post that gets people to respond). Those are great tips. However, his last two tips go down the black hat SEO route of using fake headlines (annoying and really just video spam) and appeal to sex (UGH).

Getting into the Most Viewed Page - This entire section reminds me of the age old argument of getting high search engine rankings (I need links to get listed high, but unless I'm listed high I don't get links). Most of Dan's tips if looked at from a macro level are steps you should follow, but I wouldn't recommend following them exactly because you can start moving down a slippery slope; that is unless you are ok with that.

Blogs - you should reach out to bloggers with a following or content you crave, Dan pays people to embed their video

Forums - again it is ok to reach out to forums and post videos and links; that's good outreach to the community. I fall off the wagon when he says that he starts multiple accounts to kick start a conversation. Again I'm not surprised this happens, in fact, coordinated or not by political campaigns, you can see this in action of plenty of political blogs and forums.***UPDATE*** See this link regarding Hillary Clinton supporters paying to have people leave comments; they've announced that they called this off but none the less I told you people do this.

Facebook, MySpace, and Friends list - the tips here are all good tactics to use, but one has to wonder how much having a large Facebook list is worth on the open market

Email List - this looks and feels very spam like to me, since he separates out his own friends list. Of course you can buy lists legally of people who agree to accept 3rd party email solicitations, but one has to wonder how much of these emails lists were actually purchased with the right privacy settings.

Title Optimization - Again these are good strategies to use and reminds me of email subject line optimization, however Dan gives some questionable tips like "so we sometimes have a catchy (and somewhat misleading) title for the
first few days, then later switch to something more relevant to the
brand. Recently, I’ve noticed a trend towards titling videos with the
phrases “exclusive,” “behind the scenes,” and “leaked video.”

Thumbnail Optimization - For the most part the tips outlined here are all good to go, but unless you have women in your video, you won't be able to follow Dan's main tactic "As we edit our videos, we make sure that the frame at the very middle
is interesting. It’s no surprise that videos with thumbnails of half
naked women get hundreds of thousands of views."

Commenting: Having a Conversation With Yourself - I have to be blunt, I can't find any Positive tips to pull out of here other than stay active on your comments. Dan admits to having multiple accounts and stirring up trouble by making negative or inflammatory comments.

Releasing all videos simultaneously - A great tip to follow, unless of course you are a political campaign and your ads, videos change constantly.

Strategic Tagging - A great strategy and one that I always tell clients and friends to employ even for their blog (why do you think I tag every post I make with PardonMyFrench). Searches in social networks look for tags first and then make "long tail" type searches so it is important to get your tagging strategy in line. BTW - I doubt Dan invented this technique and besides, I'm not sure it is something that could be invented.

Metrics - The only tip Dan provides is putting a pass thru value on the end of a URL which is nothing new. In fact, that's how I've been tracking online advertising since about 2000. What this string allows you to do is to write in your database where the original lead came from and then you can track whatever actions you are looking for over time (sales, email signups, site visits, etc).

The original Techcrunch post sure got a lot of people fired up, myself included. At a high level, Dan's tips look like this "use hot women, pay bloggers to make posts, setup fake accounts to make a ton of comments, mislead people with provocative headlines, and then make sure you have hot women on the thumbnails". It certainly casts an ominous shadow on real word of mouth marketing. However, if you sift through the shady tips, there are some useful tactics that you should be using on your own social networking campaigns.

I saw this article today over at Business Week called Web Video: Move Over, Amateurs and I had to laugh. Like that was somehow news? It is no secret that YouTube built its audience on the backs of users uploading copyrighted material. The facts are that the professionally generated content is well, better. That's why there are so many fights over where the videos are hosted and who commands the advertising dollars. As I wrote before, just follow the content to see who wins the battle over your eyeball. That's why companies are fighting over the material they paid to produce.

Personally, I'd rather have fewer places to go to watch video clips and of course my first stop is always YouTube. I just like the layout and the community better, but that doesn't mean that Google should get a free ride on the videos that people are watching. When consumers generated great content that is the place to look for it first.

Up until recently I only loaded up the "home video" for friends and family to watch over at my family blog. They were your typical home movies only fit for family consumption, but I did have a great video of Jacob on the entire Thunder Mountain Railroad ride at Disney that anyone would be interested in especially if you were on your way to vacation there. That got 304 views which was only topped by another Disney video I uploaded of the kids in the Animal Kingdom which garnered 492 views.

That was until yesterday when I made this post on Subway and uploaded a copy of The Family Guy Subway ad. In the roughly 2 days since I uploaded it, its received almost 1,600 views. Now if you notice on the post, the video link was actually from BlipTV because when I uploaded the video at YouTube it didn't appear in my folder so I thought YouTube zapped it (I still expect them to).

The vast majority of CGC is basically crap and that includes my home videos. Sifting through it can be tough; however that doesn't mean anyone should stop trying to be their own director. YouTube is a great way to level the playing field for professional versus consumers. If you have an idea, a camera, and a well thought out plan you can build an audience up and truly deliver content that rivals the professionals.

Do people like professional content better? Well of course they do, but that only means that people want well written, filmed, and edited content and any talented person can deliver on the promise.

On my favorite Springsteen fan site Greasylake the rumors were running
everywhere about NY's Q104.3 (yes that old classic rock station is back) playing Springsteen's new song Radio Nowhere. Sadly, it didn't occur on Monday but they were able to play the song on Friday. In addition to that, Little Steven's Underground was also supposed to play it tonight, but even though I registered for the site to listen on the web, I'm not tuning in. What gives? Have I become disappointed with Bruce and the band? Heck no, I'm even more Badlands fist pumping excited over a new E Street Band CD and tour to follow. I just think the folks at Springsteen Inc ought to have a New Media Strategy. You see relying on radio stations to debut a song is a waste of time for Bruce and a waste of time for you when you can easily find it on the net.

Late last week, you could have downloaded the song from BitTorrent, but let's say you are like me and don't really want to leave a footprint. Sure I'll trade bootlegs because Bruce and the Band have given their blessings over the years (bootleggers start your tapes), but downloading a studio, copyrighted song, no way. However, about 2 days ago you could have found the song uploaded on YouTube which is really the uploader's and YouTube's problem. As of this writing, approximately 45K plays of the song has occurred on YouTube. That's 45K times that a listen occurred without a radio station.

Now of course I benefited from not wasting my time listening to commercials and songs that a DJ or program director thought I should listen to and for that I'm thankful. It just points out the sad state that radio is in especially classic rock stations when a classic rock star like Bruce puts out a new song and they can hardly cash in on it. Does Bruce have a new media strategy? I don't know and I'm not sure if he cares. The folks that posted it don't look like they are official types, but who knows maybe the song was leaked to them. Will he lose sales from posting like this? Sure, but I don't think anyone should cry because a tour to follow up the release plus merchandise will guarantee Bruce and the Band hundreds of millions of dollars.

If the song was leaked, then why not cash in on the search activity and runs some pay per click ads to drive even more traffic. How about a free download of his site? Perhaps he can't because of his contract and if that's the case will Sony now come after YouTube? It clearly points out that a rock star like Bruce, even with an aging audience has to have a new media strategy. Anyway, I L-O-V-E the song; nothing is better than listening to a new song by Bruce and The E Street Band to make you feel new again.

Man, I had a busy day today and it continues. If you've been following me along in Facebook all you've seen from me in the past few days is that I'm buried in work. Hence the reason for not being on top of this B-I-G news from YouTube.

According to this article in AdWeek YouTube Ad Plan Shuns Pre-Rolls and will overlay ads right within the video player. According to YouTube, pre-roll video shows a much larger abandonment rate (75%) than the overlay ads that they are using (10%). Basically it works by YouTube inserting a 10 second ad in the bottom 20% of the video unit that you can click on and then watch the commercial. Google said the ads got 1%-2% click rates and on average 75% of the commercial was watched. Those numbers, while I believe are true, probably over state the long term impact as the cool factor wears off. For a cool demo watch this video from fellow Internet Oldtimer and Jersey Guy Shawn Collins.

From a marketing perspective I can't wait to test these ads out and already emailed my contacts at Google. What I've always liked about pre-roll is that it forces people to watch your commercial to see the content, however this version might be less intrusive. Sort of a product placement right within the content or similar to that old "i" in TiVo that could let you request more information from an advertiser (I don't know anyone that's done that). The CPMs seem a little high right now ($20), but low enough to give them a try. Plus, you get short branding even if the user doesn't click on the ad. I'm sure over time, we'll see this incorporated into Google's AdWords platform so you can select based on genre, demographics, and URL.

However, I think this will probably upset a lot of hard core YouTube users. I think they were probably bracing for some short pre or post-roll, but the ad placements right within their content might be seen as intrusive. I really can't tell you how I feel because I'm not a hard core user. I upload videos there, but all of them are personal so I could care less. The big upside is to get a share of the CPMs which should ease the pain this causes users.

Of course Google had to do something a little different even if they borrowed the format from other video hosting sites. As long as the user base can learn to tolerate the ad insertions, I'm sure YouTube will start churning out the ad dollars.

Well I'm back from vacation and sadly I had a good week in traffic even though I didn't post. I have a lot to read via my RSS feeds so I have a lot of catching up to do. However, there were two subjects that really caught my eye in the limited time I've had to pound through a week's worth of feeds.

One of them is the big deal a lot of people are making with regards to whether Republican Presidential candidates will skip the upcoming YouTube/CNN Republican Debate. So far, only John McCain and Ron Paul have agreed to participate and people wait to see what Romney, Rudy, and others will do. You can see from my two link posts from July 27th and July 29th that it is getting very heated as to why people think they should or should not skip the debates. You want to know what I think?

This is a debate people and whether it is YouTube or not means that the campaigns need to figure out whether this is advantageous or not.

I don't think that if Republicans skip this it means that we are far behind the Democrats when it comes to using the internet. We run more online advertising and search marketing than they do today.

You see a lot of "experts" discount the online advertising techniques we are employing because Google Ads and Display ads aren't as buzz worthy as a Twitter, Second Life, YouTube, Facebook, and etc efforts even though there is precious little data on how they impact a campaign right now. Unlike search which we've shown delivers $4 in donations to John McCain for every $1 in spending, there is NO data on the impact of these social networking tools.

Perhaps Republicans have a better handle on micro targeting and realize
that in order to succeed in the primaries and/or general election that there are a large base of voters that don't consider YouTube the end all to be all. Witness this screen shot from Lee Rainie for her Personal Democracy Forum presentation that shows the stark differences by age for where people get most of their political news. Are you shocked to see TV's dominance even in the under 36 age group? How about the lack of use of the internet for people 51 and older? You know that the older you are, the more likely you are to vote right?

As Jason Calacanis points out, Social Networking takes a lot out of your day and I know precious few parents and working stiffs like myself that have the time to really use these services. I try, but even I have my limits. So why is this important? Perhaps these social networking sites are not the holy grail of politics.

Anyway, I don't think Republicans are behind the times unless you think online marketing only means Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter. I do think all should participate in the debates even if they get asked strange questions from the YouTube community. As Bruce Springsteen found out in 2003 when he first did a questions and answers with his fans (see post continuation), they may ask ridiculous questions like boxers or briefs, but these are still your fans and you should interact with them as often as possible. That's the only way to take their pulse on what's important to them.

Yes, I'm about 5 days behind making this post, but other things caught my attention and I do have one full time jobs and a couple of side things that keeps me busy (BTW - that's why I don't consider myself a full-time blogger). Anyway, the NYTimes had an article called MySpace Mini-Episodes, Courtesy of Honda and I went through the entire article and test drove the TJ Hooker episode and I think this is an absolutely wonderful idea. Here's the basic idea:

Take a bunch of 70s/80s reruns like Charlie Angels, TJ Hooker, etc and edit them down to 4-6 minutes to be shown on the screen.

Each episode is carefully edited to keep the plot together all while making sure you get the general gist of the show

Stick an 8 second pre-roll commercial in front of the episode solely sponsored by Honda

And, bingo you have webified TV shows built for today's attention deficit disorder crowd of the internet

Seriously, it is brilliant. I can't really see it hurting DVD sales and to be blunt it may even help. How many of you are going to run out and buy the Facts of Life in DVD? (Did anyone else have a crush on Nancy McKeon besides myself while in school?) Plus it introduces these shows to a generation that will never see them because they've probably outlived
their TV syndication usefulness .

I watched the TJ Hooker episode and you could definitely get a feel for the show and the plot. That is, bad guy on the loose, James T Kirk chases him but fails at first, Heather Locklear make it look easy being sexy, and then Kirk fights the villain and wins in the end rescuing his partner. It was enjoyable, fast watching, virtually commercial free, and looked great on the little screen.

The only concerns I might have is limiting it to MySpace only for now and how Honda will judge success. The sponsorship for now is 6 figures and as the article mentions, Honda is trying to sell the Honda Fit. Also found in the NY Times article is this "Lauren Mehl, associate media director at RPA in Santa Monica, Calif.,
said the agency would evaluate the subsequent sponsorship opportunities
based on how the commercials perform their run on MySpace."

I wonder what Honda will deem success. It fits in with their positioning of their car, but other than boosting awareness and visits to the site, I think they'll have a hard time proving car sales are being generated from these ads, but maybe they have some other measurements.

This is clearly a homerun product and besides being available on the web, you can bet the format will find a home on your cell phone in the future as well as other online properties. Hopefully, more studios will follow the lead.

So, our baby sitter Brittany Holloway clued me into FunnyorDie.com a few days ago.
She was pretty proud of showing me something that I had not seen yet. The site is only 7 weeks old and it includes professionally made video shorts from Will Ferrell and others as well as consumer generated comedy shorts. You can read a nice synopsis from the New York Times called Comedy Business Turns to the Web. The immortal landlord video that's posted on Funny or Die has like 3.2 million views which should make anyone jealous, plus there are a ton of other videos with serious amounts of views (see screen shot). When I looked for them over at YouTube all I found were grainy versions with a mere fraction of the views.

Hmmm, this got me thinking. If a big time comedian like Will Ferrell can quickly pump out
videos that produce millions of views in a short amount of time than what does it say about the future of YouTube or any other video aggregator site for that matter? According to the NY Times article, Ferrell started with a $5K budget and then Sequoia Capital increased its investment to several million dollars. So, it is really peanuts for other professionals to follow his lead, right? Add in say, Sports announcers for their own Sports shows (think Yankeeography) and other genres and then what happens to YouTube? What happens if all of these professionals want to only post it on their website like Comedy Central?

Some folks will tell you, well they will be missing out on the YouTube community. Me, I'll tell you that people won't care. No matter how great the community aspect is in YouTube they will follow the content. See what made YouTube cool was the ability to have your videos hosted for free where you can engage the community for free. People get that now because the model is so simple.

Take for example the current group of Presidential candidates. It makes sense for them to be on YouTube because they can have their own channel there and that makes it easy for people to engage with the campaigns. Sure the RNC or DNC could make their own channel, but then it would have to pull the audience over with political messages. This is a lot harder than going where the people are. Comedy shorts is another issue altogether.

Now back to my title. I was tipped off by a 19 year old college student. Britt is well connected and has a large following on Facebook and MySpace so she is exactly the Web 2.0 social user. Did she care (or her friends) that she wasn't on YouTube but on FunnyorDie.com? Heck no. Why should she? She can leave comments, vote, and interact with other users and whether that is on YouTube or elsewhere it doesn't matter.

My take? If I was Yahoo, AOL, MSN, or Google I'd take a good look at what is happening at FunnyorDie and start thinking about channels rather than community. The community is a tool that makes video viewing on the internet 2-way, not the driving force behind why there is traffic there; that's what the content is for. If they wait too long to build channels behind the content, they'll get outfoxed by Joost where the community aspect is just a tool and the content, organized like TV channels, is king.

A few days back, Yahoo announced that they will be hosting two online only debates, one for Republicans and one for Democrats and the co-sponsors of the debates are The Huffington Post and Slate.com. Now, the idea for an online only debate is a great move, but what I wonder is why didn't Yahoo pick another partner to balance out The Huffington Post? Weren't they concerned about picking another partner that is clearly on the left side of the political spectrum. Now, I'm not writing there is something wrong with the site and I do visit (not often) sites that are on both sides of the aisle, but Yahoo could have done a better job picking another partner that was either more neutral or one that could have balanced out HuffPost like Townhall.com. In fact, Townhall would have been the perfect foil to HuffPost. Think I'm off base? Then let's take a look at the content on Huffington Post right now:

So, what do you see? A post from John Kerry. Nice. Another blog post titled Sen Kerry: GOP Is Teetering on the Brink....It's Time to Start Giving Them a Push. For further proof, which is the only part that really matters, visit their blog section for really good balanced commentary.

Now, don't get me wrong, I am not writing that there is anything wrong with the site or commentary. What I am writing is that I can't see how Yahoo could view The Huffington Post as being anything but a liberal blog site and The Slate.com as also a left of center magazine site that does not balance out HuffPost. Need more proof, Yahoo? Hit this link from Quantcast and scroll down on the right until you see a column called Similar Audience and you'll see that their similar audience is from the liberal blogosphere.

Why does this matter? Well, Democrats opted out of a Fox News Debate because they believed that Fox News is an Republican only news outlet. I wonder what Republican campaigns think of this online debate format? Here's an interesting perspective from Townhall on the debate and why Republicans should attend it as opposed to the current fieldof Democrats that opted out of a Fox News Debate.

Nothing against The Huffington Post or Slate, but I really think Yahoo could have done a better job of either a) keeping it totally neutral or b) adding in another sponsor that was on the opposite side of the political spectrum. Again, I have no inside knowledge of what Republican strategies will be behind attending the event, I'm just an online media guy, but Yahoo really missed the boat on keeping this a fair and balanced event. Come on Yahoo, this wasn't even up for debate..

Wow, quite a number of articles on YouTube, Google, and the News Corp and NBC alliance plus the Viacom lawsuit that it looks to me like the vultures are circling over YouTube's non-user generated content or what is affectionately called copyrighted material. Seriously, it might be too late for GoogTube to even go back to the negotiating table with the legal content owners to cut a deal (not really, but written for effect). Sure YouTube will be there for user generated content and free hosting of videos, but once the professional content and clips move elsewhere, so will the traffic. As far as I can tell, 7 out of the top 10 most viewed videos this week are professional clips, so what will draw people to YouTube - crappy home videos? Here's a few of my favorite reasons for GoogTube to be worried about the vultures flying over head:

The News Corp and NBC alliance is smart because it gives advertisers an alternative and hopefully if they execute it right, a win-win for advertisers and publishers. Plus, according to the article, they will feed Yahoo the content and thus tap into Yahoo's audience.

Partnering with Yahoo is not only good for the new alliance, it also helps Yahoo with their battle versus Google for advertising dominance. And, you thought Yahoo was left for the dead?

According to AdAge several big time advertisers are lining up to sign up with the new alliance.

Google is even taking the new alliance seriously by offering to become a distribution partner for it according to the WSJ article called NBC, News Corp Plan Online Video Venture. BTW - Google is smart enough to look at all ways to monetize traffic and it is completely within their play book to work both sides of an advertising deal.

I really think that GoogTube will have a tough time with the Viacom lawsuit because these guys are really serious about protecting the content which they created and have every right to determine how much they should be paid for it.

Finally, go read for yourself about the DMCA safe harbor code and make your own judgments of how much trouble GoogTube is in and stop listening to people who haven't actually read the law. My favorite part is towards the end when it defines what a service provider is - judge for yourself whether that is supposed to be your online service provider or a website; try not to talk yourself into believing that the lawmakers didn't know the difference between say Earthlink and Yahoo back in 1998.

I actually don't jump for joy over this because I am a huge fan of Google. I just think we should all stand up for the rights of the content creators who paid to produce what you watch online. Why should GoogTube determine how much they should get paid for their hard work? This definitely won't be easy for GoogTube, but who knows they may still wind up dominating the entire online advertising industry anyway, right?

A very interesting article on the front page of the Wall Street Journal today called Sales of Music, Long in Decline, Plunge Sharply. I can't help but thinking this foreshadows the big TV versus YouTube and other video sharing sites battle. However, before we jump into that, here are the high or low lights from the article:

CD sales declined 20% this year and they account for 85% of music sold

800 music stores including 89 Tower locations closed

Apple sold 100 million iPods proving that someone still listens to music :-P

Digital sales of music has picked up by 54%

According to one source, one billion songs are downloaded illegally

The article also talked about how individual CD sales are declining for folks like Norah Jones.
However, those individual declines can easily be explained if you believe in The Long Tail and that record companies should no longer be relying on mega hits. This also explains the decline in retail stores and shelf space where storing music and songs online and downloading what you want, legally, is more efficient and cheaper than stocking shelves and betting on a hit. BTW - I don't feel sorry for Norah Jones because she stole a Grammy from Springsteen for The Rising.

Enough background and back to my post. Do I care about retailers? No and I don't care about the music industry having to change how they produce music because the term hits is quickly fading as individuals determine what they like and join communities around their music tastes. What I do think is interesting is that the music industry has paid to produce the CDs and paid the musicians who made the CDs. That gives them rights to protect their product just like Viacom in their battle with YouTube.

Who are we to say how someone makes money? If a musician signs on with a label who produces their music, why should they have that stolen from them. Who are you to say how someone makes a living? Don't give me - well tough, they should tour more or figure out some other way to get paid. Or, the classic, well take less money. Who is to tell you how much is too much money? Isn't this America where you can plot your own way? Last time I checked it was.

If you want to distribute your music for free, good for you. If you think you have a better revenue model that gets you paid what you think it is worth; then go for it. How about a share of the advertising revenue from the downloading site? Great. If you sign on with a record company because you believe it is more efficient or you'll get paid more; great, but guess what, they are going to want to protect their investment which means your fans may get in trouble for illegal downloads. Or, sometime in the near future your contracts will get smaller and smaller.

This is simple. A company produces your work, they want copyright protections which means places like YouTube and music download sites have to pay attention. Why should the dollars involved with this transaction (viewing TV clips or listening to music) be shifted from going to the legal copyright owners to the sites that facilitated the transaction?

Advertising revenue is generated because someone paid the site owner who stores the information and makes it easy to download; what gives you the right to determine how the transaction is paid? Last time I checked, nobody should tell you how much you should sell your product for or how to push it out. Again, this is simple - it is about how someone gets paid and their rights to determine that method.

As I was checking through all the major campaign's search campaigns, I started to notice that a YouTube ad was appearing on all the candidate's names and I thought hmmm that is interesting. I only browsed through the top candidates of each side and as long as they are featured on YouTube's You Choose '08 page, there is a corresponding Google text ad directing the clicks into the individual candidate's YouTube video page. Some screen shots are shown in this post, but here are a couple of interesting observations:

Mitt Romney's own text ad was consistently listed
in the third spot behind declare yourself and YouTube. BTW - I'm not commenting on their search strategy, they may have valid reasons for not being #1.

Hillary and Edwards who don't have any PPC ads of their own, now have YouTube in their #1 slot.

Any other campaigns that are running PPC ads now have YouTube solidly in their #2 slot.

Of course, their ad buying raises a couple of questions, namely:

How much does this effect the actual CPCs people are paying and is that fair?

What is the impact on their search marketplace?

Why is Google actually paying (assuming they are paying) to drive traffic into YouTube? I thought they wouldn't need to do that. And, even if they're not paying, there is an opportunity cost to not having someone in that second position.

Are the ads actually driving bid amounts up for advertisers on those words? What happens if someone wants to outbid YouTube for the placement.?

I wrestled with what I actually think about it and I guess I'm coming up in a neutral to positive position. If you are not running any PPC ads (not sure where the logic is for that
move.....), but you care enough about YouTube, than Google is doing you a big favor. If you are running PPC ads, I also think it could be helping you by keeping someone else out of the #2 position and sending people into a page that hopefully you've been working on. The most negative aspect of it could mean your CPCs are going up or you are dropping in the rankings for your own name.

You thought search engine marketing was complicated in the private sector? Try outbidding Google for your own brand name....

Ok, so by now you’ve seen the headlines that Viacom is suing
Google for $1 Billion for violating the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act
and no surprise here, I think GoogTube has a problem. Now I’ve never been accused of being a lawyer
and I haven’t gone over the DMCA in depth, but here’s why I think this is a
problem as someone that has negotiated quite a number of big business
development deals over the years:

It is Viacom’s property. They paid for it, they designed it, and they have the right to control it.

If Viacom chooses to ignore the YouTube community, that’s their prerogative
and no matter how much you scream “ohhhh they are ignoring the community….ohh this is so typical” it means nothing since they are the content owners.

Since
they are the content owners, they get to sell their product, right? That means airing it on TV and getting advertisers (you remember them), DVD sales, and of course they then get to syndicate it right? If GoogTube takes that ability away either by loading snips or airing just the good parts of a show, won’t that impact their ability to monetize their property?

According to the WSJ article called Viacom versus Google Could Shape Digital Future,
Viacom ordered Google to remove their content and as late as yesterday
there was still content available on the site. GoogTube knows that they shouldn’t have the content there, but didn’t care to remove it when it was reposted.

Google is looking to monetize the traffic from their $1.6 Billion investment in
YouTube by selling advertising. So, if there is content available that shouldn’t be there, who says that Google should get the advertising revenue instead of what Viacom deems
necessary. How can you pick sides when Viacom is being impacted?

Let’s stop there for a second regarding making money off the
advertising. There is an interesting
paragraph at the end of the article that says “YouTube…doesn’t display ads on
pages where consumers can actually view videos unless it has an agreement with
the content owner. But advertising does
appear on pages listing results users see when they search for videos on
YouTube.”

Ok. That’s
interesting. I wonder what would happen
if Viacom borrowed some online advertising techniques from those ruthless
internet advertisers of the gambling and porn industry and posted a 10 second
video on YouTube and linked to their site to view more. Does this mean that since they don’t have a
content deal with Google they could post what they want and order Google to
pull down what they don’t want, all while sending valuable traffic to their own
site where they can monetize the traffic?

Anyway, in the content deals that I’ve negotiated it usually
goes like this:

Content owner wants to get the highest bang for
their buck

Site owner wants to pay the cheapest amount so
they can afford to spend on more content from other sources

Site owner offers content owner a channel to
their audience

If content owner thinks the audience is valuable
for the price they are willing to receive, a deal gets done; otherwise the
content owner walks away or gets more money

Pretty simple. I’d
rather see this get done at the negotiating table rather than the court room
because it really is just about advertising revenue. One thing is certain, the DMCA needs to get
rewritten.

A very interesting article in yesterday's Wall Street Journal called TV Industry Clouds Google's Video Vision. It outlined the struggle Google is having with the legal content owners like Viacom and CBS in cutting deals to have their content posted on YouTube. What surprises me the most is that Google couldn't cut a deal with CBS when only a few months back the two were bragging about the views that CBS' videos were receiving and the impact on their offline viewership. I guess that press release was all about hype or making the business development managers on both sides look good for end of year accomplishments.

I've written numerous times in the past in support of the content owners because they paid for the talent, writing, productions, and editing and they should be able to capture as much share of the advertising revenue as possible. Does that put me against all the other promoters of Web 2.0 and the community? Well a little, but don't forget unlike some of those experts I've actually cut million dollar business development deals both buying content and offering content. At the end of the day, it belongs to the content owners, plain and simple. If you wrote a book, you'd like to get paid right? You should also be able to take what price you want for your content.

According to the article, 13 out of the top 20 videos on YouTube for the month ending 2/15 were professionally produced. What does that tell you? The companies that produced the content should be reimbursed for the viewing. Sure you can make the argument that YouTube should be compensated for having the audience, but then this brings up a chicken or the egg theory. Only this time, the chicken is probably more responsible for making the content egg.

Of course I have no idea what is happening behind the scenes, but to me Google looks like the bad guy here; however, Google's bad press on this is being generated by the same companies they are negotiating with. Whether you think the content owners are purposely trying to make Google look bad in the press, it doesn't matter because the reporters themselves would naturally have their bias built in.

Google needs the content more than the content owners need Google. Why? Good content will be found on the web, even if it is a little harder to find it. People will Digg them and leave comments on Digg or comments and trails to the videos. Sure it might not be as much fun (notice Digg is getting the videos from YouTube), but people will surf to find the content.

I for one hope Google can cut the deals because it will be better to house them on YouTube. And, please stop giving the community argument. This is way beyond that. Ever since Google bought YouTube, this is now about making as much advertising money as possible. That's it (period). If Google can't cut deal, than YouTube may just turn out to be what the description at the top of the page says - "Broadcast Yourself", but it will probably be worth a lot less as people go elsewhere. After all, as Mark Cuban wrote, online videos are the snack while TV is the meal; people will move to where the food is.

PardonMyFrench,

Eric

P.S. I saw this post over at the Internet Outsider: Dvorak on Viacom: Old Media Boneheads and while at first glance it seems reasonable, however the clips are not free marketing - they are the best of a show as decided by the users with the rest removed so you DO NOT have to watch the rest of the show. You don't have to sit through the whole show to see the 10 minutes that you want - taking revenue opportunities away from the content owners and putting it with YouTube.

I don't know if you saw this, but it came out on Friday. According to the NY Times article Viacom Tells YouTube: Hands Off, after negotiations that Viacom described as not showing a sense of "urgency to enter into an agreement with anyone" they demanded that 100,000 videos be removed. Other favorite quotes from Viacom on these negotiations included:

"We can not continue to let them profit from our programming"

"They chose not to filter out copyrighted content"

"They are saying we will only protect your content if you do a deal with us - if not we will steal it."

As I've written before, last in a post called Content Battles with YouTube Not Over Yet, I still think that companies like Viacom need to protect their content and profit. Didn't Viacom produce the content that Google-YouTube is profiting from because they allowed users to upload the content? Why should Google be the only one that makes money from someone else's materials? Why is that fair? Who is to say, too much is too much?

Now, I don't know what happened in the negotiations and of course the article was slanted one way, but it sure seemed like from the quotes above, Google was trying to push Viacom around. And, what was their leverage with Viacom? Oh the community will be upset because you are pulling down content. Or you are missing out on interacting with the community. Finally, how about the CBS study that showed increases in viewers.

You know what I would have said as someone that has negotiated content deals? Pay me what I think is a fair share or I will post on my own site. If people want the content, they are one click away. Oh so they miss commenting on YouTube - big deal. That is YouTube's problem not mine because when they find out they can only see the content on my site, then they will visit and I will get paid.

Look, this is about money and trying to make profits on both sides. I don't see how you can choose the side other than the one that says who ever made the content, should get what they this is a fair share of the money. If you wrote a book or play, made music, or even a video that gets shown a lot, you are going to want to get paid somehow, right? At the end of the day, I'm sure Viacom would rather have their content where the community is today, but if it wasn't a good deal for them, they can always walk away and try again. This is probably one big negotiation tactic, but so what? Can't they try and extract as much value as possible. BTW: Mark Cuban has an interesting post called Gootube Terrorizes Copyright Owners by Withholding Filters

I know it seems sexy right now for folks to comment on how you should let the community download and post music, videos, etc on social network sites like YouTube, MySpace, and etc for free. However, I keep asking questions on how these companies, bands, etc make money in the long term and how they recoup their investment. Every time I post a comment on expert sites I get similar answers like: don't wreck the community, these are big companies they'll make it up elsewhere, the classic Digital Millennium Copyright Act reply, or my favorite which is silence. One thing is clear that going after the end-user who posts the content is wrong because at the end of the day, they make nothing off of it and after all this is about money right?

You know how you make money if you are a major content owner? Embrace the community and cut deals with as many social networks as possible. That way, you get paid advertising and let the social networking shells work their magic with traffic, commentary, and friend building. You know like CBS is doing with YouTube.

It seems that after this deal has been in place which includes a CBS Channel on YouTube, CBS has seen awesome online as well as offline results. CBS is averaging over 850,000 views per day and have seen TV ratings boosted on Letterman as well as The Late, Late Show. For a detailed look at the numbers, check out this press release found over at YouTube - those are some nice views. The only problem right now with the CBS Channel on YouTube is the lack of enough advertising units to generate money (preroll video) and I'm not talking Google AdSense. The other disappointing piece of the press release is a lack of more concrete numbers - for example, when I've reported numbers for online videos I report minutes viewed and average time spent in the unit, not just viewership....no reason why the internet can't do better than counting views.

See, embracing the community while making money and protecting your copyrights can all be accomplished at the same time. All it takes is a little deal-cutting, cooler heads, and a realization that this is the world shaping up in front of us. To ignore the online video wave is like putting your head in the sand when Google's stock came out at $90. If you do, you might end up viewing consumers as thieves....

So on Friday Universal Music decided to sue MySpace over copyright infringement and I was originally going to sit this one out because I've said enough on the subject in the past. Well, I can't sit this one out for very long. Sorry, besides I need to write another post to keep my mind off of the the Giants-Jaguars football game.

First up for me was Joe Jaffe's website and the commentary which I left for Joe which he did answer. You can read the post from Joe which is a good one and no he didn't get me upset or fired up, just made me think a little more and post. However, I asked this question "Why should MySpace make money from other's content?.....Seems to me that MySpace cuts a deal or end up in court." Joe wrote back "Don't get me wrong...I'm not advocating that MySpace profit (although
I'm still not sure there's a robust and proven advertising model per se
other than the exit strategy which as already been enacted), but at the
same time, how exactly does one figure out a fair and equitable royalty
per se.." Good stuff.

Next up was my fellow Marketing Prof blogger Mack Collier in the post called Want to Go Swimming? Try Going WITH The Current. I didn't leave a comment because well, it goes along with what Joe wrote and I already have one conversation going.

So, my question is why should the content owners let MySpace, YouTube and others make money off of their traffic which is partly driven by the copyrighted material posted there? Where do you think people are going to go to see The Daily Show now that they had the content removed from YouTube and kept over at their website so Comedy Central can monetize that traffic themselves? How do you view the Google search results shown on the right? See #4? Where do you think that traffic is now going to? Back to the content owner. I'm sure Comedy Central's web marketers are happy with where that traffic is going now.

I'm not sure what the right answer is here, but when YouTube can be sold for a king's ransom for traffic that is partly generated by copyrighted material than those content owners will take notice and want a slice of the pie. I do believe that going after the end-user who uploaded the material in the first place is not the solution - that's just wrong to go after people that are not benefiting from a trickle down effect of the gold being showered on the inventors of the social marketing shell game.

About a week back I wrote a post called When Does MSN Get Upset with YouTube and it was about finding MSNBC content on YouTube. My little theory went like this: Why should a website like MSN or Disney with their own significant web traffic allow YouTube to host their own copyrighted material and make advertising revenue off of the YouTube traffic?

Well, it looks like someone over at Comedy Central read my post (probably not, but I can dream right?) and sent a request to Google-YouTube asking them to remove all copyrighted material including SouthPark, The Daily Show, and The Colbert Report. The material can be found over at Comedy Central's Motherload site but a quick browse through the site shows that it is not the same as the YouTube interface or other video sharing sites. However, there is a nice ad placement in the right that you must watch before the video launches. (BTW - I watched a SouthPark video of the boys playing World of Warcraft.) So my question is why should content owners let YouTube get their traffic and Google monetize it to get revenue? Obviously, Google is/was worried about that answer too.

On the heels of this announcement, comes a post from Mark Cuban called Some intimate details on the Google YouTube deal in which he gets some potential behind the scene details on the deal. As Mark says "I cant say this has been fact checked. It hasnt. I cant say its 100 pct accurate, I dont know. But it rings true, and as I said, I trust the source" but the potential behind the scenes look has some interesting points if they are true. The post is long, but here are the highlights:

YouTube offered the media companies a straight revenue deal if the copyright issues went away. It didn't fly with them.

As part of the Google deal, $500 million of the $1.65 billion purchase price was to be set aside for potential settlements. However, Google was still worried.

The media companies negotiated a most favored nation clause with YouTube so they each got $50 million; however, they didn't want to pay talent fees so opted for equity positions.

Google needed two other key points - a 6 month pause on copyright lawsuits from the media companies in the deal and lawsuits on YouTube competitors like Bolt and Grouper.

The key to a lot of what Mark wrote about is that we, Google, and anyone else involved in the video space knows is that the real money will be made on content professionally produced. That's why the traffic is being generated on these sites.

That's not to say that often a consumer generated video won't be a homerun, because it will happen. However, if you are an advertiser you'll need to know where your ads are appearing, especially if you are spending serious money - like they do with TV spending today.

Companies still spend big bucks on TV shows- if you are an advertiser where would you want your money spent? Monday Night Football or a video of a 3 year old throwing his first pass? For every great Mentos ad there is another homegrown video that will be hard to monetize. This battle is far from over. Just follow the content to see who wins.

The other day I watched a few videos online. First, I started off over at MSNBC watching Chris Matthew's Hardball's College Tour and then for some odd reason, I ended up following a few links to a YouTube video with MSNBC's Keith Obermann. Of course both units had advertising on the margins with YouTube's primary advertising revenue source being Google PPC Content Targeting ads. Besides the obvious copyright battles, what about the ad revenue battle between Google PPC Content Text ads versus MSN's ad targeting system.

MSNBC historically has high CPM rates for display ads especially ones framing video ads. Believe me, I ought to know because I've been buying on MSN for years. Their traffic is being diverted to YouTube-Google when people upload this co pyrighted material so instead of watching it on MSNBC you can see it on YouTube. The revenue generated from this should be lower (not a scientific analysis but just based on my experience in running content CPCs versus buying display ads). In effect, MSN is losing traffic and revenue when these files are uploaded. I can't believe they will continue to allow this which not only becomes a battle over copyrighted material but also a battle in ad revenue models. Even if they had a deal, they'd have to make it up on tremendous amounts of clicks.

So, where do you think the battle is going to end up? If you are a major publisher like MSN or Disney and have tremendous amounts of traffic already, I can't believe you are going to sit on the sidelines and let YouTube take your traffic away with your own protected media. How much pay per click advertising from clueless advertisers using Google's content targeting would need to go to MSN or Disney to allow this to occur? I'd think the derived CPMs wouldn't match up for a while. And, if they don't send orders to YouTube to remove it, I hope they don't go after the consumers that posted it as my fellow Marketing Prof Mack Collier warns in his post called The Google-YouTube Deal: Here's What You Missed. It should be an interesting fight....I wonder who gets to copyright it and post it on YouTube.

Sure there has been a ton of posts on Google and YouTube, so I'm not going to waste your time with my opinion on the deal. You want a good perspective on the subject, than give Mark Cuban a read on his last post on the deal called I Still Think Google is Crazy. When you read Mark's post and others on the deal one thing that is constant is what will Google do about copyright infringement? Let's put aside the consumer generated content aspect of YouTube because the benefits are obvious: traffic, free hosting, support of the community, chance to get voted up to the top for fame and fortune, and possibly advertising revenue. I said possibly because not all marketers will want their brand message next to an unknown video, but that subject has been beaten like a dead horse.

My question is why would someone like Disney want to embrace YouTube for hosting their content? According to Nielsen, Disney is the ninth largest parent company on the internet for August 2006 with over 40 million uniques and an average time per person of 40 minutes. YouTube is a few notches down with 34 million uniques and an average time spent of 29 minutes. Clearly Disney has an audience and an even younger one and I'm sure if they wanted to, can build a social community around their content; think Walt Disney World with videos. The brand value is fantastic, they already have an audience, and they have content so why should they share their advertising revenue? Disney could also participate in CGC on their own sites or use YouTube as a portal to drive traffic much the same way TheStreet.com uses Yahoo to push traffic and usage their way.

NBC's Beth Comstock has interesting observations on consumer generated content and has a deal in place with YouTube that allows YouTube's audience to enhance NBC's fall line-up backed up with cross promotion deals between the two. At her OMMA keynote she describes how the content king has been overthrown and that consumer generated media should be described as "small media"; plus big media companies should get used to giving up control. However, when pressed by ZDNet's Donna Bogatin on the NBC YouTube deal she said that it was a promotional one with no money exchanging hands. However, whoever does the best job of monetizing the content of this deal is the one that controls it and YouTube just added Google into its corner.

Rounding out the big 3 networks, Yahoo is going to carry local news footage from CBS Television Stations, stressing once again that it is not just the content, but also the ability to distribute the content to people that are searching for it.

What gives? I think "big media" where content is king, still hasn't figured out where the long term play is going. Sure they understand the power of CGC but who owns the big media content, how much revenue can they extract from a deal, and where does the traffic come from are still unknowns in the long term. Google is betting that YouTube can be a portal that brings big and small media together with the community and then monetizes the traffic powered by Google technology.

Me? I think you just need to follow the content owners. The ones with a critical mass audience and content are not going to give it up so easily. Heck, they are already starting to grumble over their rights. If I'm NBC or Disney, I'm only doing trials for forecasting future revenue models with no long term commitments, testing impacts of the community and CGC, examining ways to build my own community, and then defending my content because while it may no longer be king, it is the only real play I have.

Stuff

Search

Copyright 2005-09 by Eric Frenchman LLC. All content on Pardonmyfrench.net, pardonmyfrench.typepad.com and EricFrenchman.com, including text, graphics, logos, and images, and the selection and arrangement thereof, is the exclusive property of Eric Frenchman LLC or its licensors and is protected by U.S. and international copyright laws. All trademarks appearing on Pardonmyfrench.net, pardonmyfrench.typed.com, and ericfrenchman.com are the property of their respective owners. All articles posted are intended for the personal, non-commercial use of Pardonmyfrench.net, pardonmyfrench.typed.com, and ericfrenchman.com visitors, provided, however, that all copyright and other proprietary notices displayed with such articles are fully retained. All rights not expressly granted are reserved.